caligula
-
Posts
454 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by caligula
-
-
This is gold with the timing
Lots of love to Umbrella. -
[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1284939076' post='2458510']
Kowalski was never yours to start with
[/quote]
What about Pete? -
I am quite amused by the response to this thread and the irony in the posts of those in tears.
-
[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1283908377' post='2445995']
GOONS v2 is immortal, gotcha...
[/quote]
His point was that neither is STA, indirectly. -
[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1283732929' post='2443157']
Finally we agree on something.
[/quote]
That bad grammar is okay when it is used to insult a mutual enemy? :3
Congratulations RnR, you have effectively clogged up the treaty web with this treaty.
By virtue of who you've signed this MDP with, you have now taken responsibility for stagnation and are required to be berated for not being a beliggerent enough alliance. This of course comes from those alliances which have not benefitted well from said beliggerance, or worse, have even contributed an equal amount of "nothing," much to the chagrin of other alliances who state explicitly they care not for your own interests but only their own.
For great shame.
<3 RnR.
<3 MHA.
Edit, forgot to love myself. -
OOC?:
He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
-Douglas Adams/OOC
I'm quite amused by all the negative sentiment, you stay classy everyone. -
[quote name='Kubla Khan' timestamp='1283231766' post='2436698']
Have you considered after so many hundreds of walls o text and from you guys, it might just be you
[/quote]
Of the lists of complaints and grievances I've heard for MHA, this is the first about posting WoT's, let alone posting at all.
But it is a step towards becoming an evil alliance with 666 members,
OOC: I wasn't referring to the MHA, I was referring to the entire game of Cybernations. I have watched and noted former friends opinions and agree that the conduct on the forums is more likely to do with the decreased activity of intelligent players in this game (and players in general,) than any lack of game update or incentive to play. People follow people. It is my opinion they're following them out the door more often than not due to the sheer hostility that exists in the game
(I don't know if I have to use tags here, but better safe than banned.) /ooc
But back on topic.
Edit: quote tags and my internet are not working out tonight. -
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1283229512' post='2436638']
I can't think of any wars where MHA has taken on an 'equal' opponent. In the last war, for example, you struggled when GGA entered against you and pulled out of the IRON front completely. MHA nations rarely coordinated and were something of a hindrance in the early days because we couldn't contact your military leadership and we had no idea if you would pick up staggers (which you didn't).
I can't accurately talk about previous wars, but I haven't seen any evidence of MHA being a superior military force in the past either.
[/quote]
Oh, we'll give you that. No one's denying that. There were internal changes going on and we had several vacancies due to real life and a lack of talent at the time. The co-ordination in our wars was mangled horribly, but we adjusted and did quite fine. That problem has since been rectified and our latest perssonell in war has revamped our program considerably, (Cable started it and continues to follow through with reform, Madspartus currently.)
Unfortunately the nature of our alliance is not hostile (Harmless, Mostly...) and we didn't have the benefit of choosing when this war occurred. But C'est la Cybernations.
To say that the Mostly Harmless Alliance could not fight a single alliance on the list of Worst Military Alliances (There are also several that we would do quite fine against on our own on the Best side as well,) and is indeed the Worst Military Alliance is a bit tacky. If we're not taking this question literally (as we're arguing about the alliances on the poll, not in the game, as there are several 1 man alliances who probably suck militarily,) the MHA is far from the worst on the board.
Also, having "never having to face severe adversity at war," as it's being called, should never be held against an alliance. If anything it should be a credit. The critique of the MHA's political decisions is another discussion.
OOC: Hint: This is where people would probably say that MHA is politically inept when using the evidence of the contrary to support it. /OOC
Edited: Wordy -
[quote name='Shodemofi' timestamp='1283228097' post='2436592']
It just seems like you're taunting them when you post that on a day that they lose score...
[/quote]
Congratulations on finding the true intent of a post congratulating everyone on the recent Amazing Sanction Race happenings.
I wanted to "seem," like I was taunting "them," whoever that is.
I congratulated the MHA (my fellow alliance mates.)
I congratulated NPO on a close race, as noted by Gopherbashi the ASR is now broken and the game is about to be reset.
I then congratulated the NPO on their recent gains even if the game is now being reset.
I congratulated NATO on doing very well despite falling short of Survivor, and I congratulated Argent, the winner of the Survivor event.
OOC: This is why people don't post on these forums anymore. Everything is so negative that even congratulatory remarks are interpereted as sarcasm and attacked at first sight. I don't fault misinterperetations, but this has become the norm rather than the exception these days. /OOC -
Free IYIyTh!
-
666. Sign of the devil.
Despite the decrease in players in the game we continue to succeed.
Congrats everyone.
Good show Pacifica, I am surprised we have managed to stave you off so far but am impressed by your gains nonetheless.
Also, congrats Argent on taking the Survivor series, and NATO for posting the most postive growth during the duration. -
[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1283117214' post='2434999']
You don't think it seems a little off that you're untested after being in this game so long?
You're nothing but cowards.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure he's referring to recently. I wouldn't want his post to be taken out of context (as I'm sure this will be as well.)
Historically the MHA has fought in nearly every global conflict, while still keeping to itself and not trying to be what it's not. If by being a coward means that we're not insulting e-bullies via forum posts, creating stupid initiatives that benefit no one for a great cost of security and time and effort, you've got us. We've had splinter AA's form from a difference of management of style, or just dislike of individuals and "the way we do things," but we've survived all of them and continue to keep the same system with a few revolutions here and there. We've had brush-ups with micro AA's and even butted our own nose into business that wasn't ours from time to time, and those I guess you could categorize as mistakes and misadventures. (Hello, iClean, Goose.) But people move on, we're content with where we are and have a great community. There's no reason for anyone to claim that a lack of obnoxiousness on the OWF is a detriment to an alliance. We stick to our principles, and do it our way. We have our friends and know who they are. For anyone pointing fingers at the treaty web, we're clearly not clogging it up. We also don't claim to be perfect, but it is a bit stinging that personal bias' and bitter ex-members continue to misrepresent the fact that existance in this game in itself is an achievement, let alone to the level we have succeeded. If you're to argue how we got there then that would just be a matter of semantics, perspective, and actual knowledge of the events in the history of the game.
Also, thumbs up JR. You stay classy. -
We're the absolute worst in the game, no doubt.
It would take months for our attackers to sift through our ghosts, and by then our actives would have been coasting with only a few wars and gigantic war chests. -
Awesome gain today
-
Aceking is more than a god, he's batman.
-
Marx isn't so bad.
But, .....
-
[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1281636279' post='2412918']
Yeah, it took a lot of work for MHA to carefully avoid any and all wars it possibly could by latching on to whoever they thought was in power. It also takes a lot of work to never bust ghosts.
[/quote]
You know, even if that was true, it would still take a lot of work.
-
Once again, we are all implying that casus belli are necessary for war.
One must step back and review this step before they can argue whether ones cb is sufficient or not. -
[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1281935078' post='2417540']
This is sure to anger the other raiding alliances.
[/quote]
lol. I thought the same thing.
Still, this is extremely funny and I like this announcement. -
[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1281905972' post='2416958']
Is this for real? Couldn't he have applied for an exemption from the requirements for applying for an exemption from the requirements for running? Either way, I applaud you on your enormous bureaucracy.
[/quote]
It's just written whinily.
We have exemptions based on certain criteria, I havn't been back in the game long enough and since no one was running against Dynasty thought, "why not?." Exemptions are common and several Triumvirates have applied for exemptions and have been elected.
Dynasty was running unapposed, and I thought to myself that any good Republic requires a multitude of candidates to avoid stagnation and demagogouery.
Mine was pretty lulzy and included pictures of Dr. Evil, and various other things, but did well to cite my nearly year and a half of service to the MHA in government.
Three months just wasn't gonna cut it, tho.
Great article though, best in a while.
(For you NATOANS out there, this was my closest election (the court one,) since the Defense position I lost out to what's his face in a tie determined by the council.) -
This is bad journalism.
Witty, but still rank with bias. -
[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281713781' post='2414367']
Oh, we aren't? Did I miss something in the past few days? Didn't we just send you a list of negotiable terms which included "NSO surrenders"?
To be clear, we are not the ones stalling this peace process with our obstinacy.
[/quote]
[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281713963' post='2414371']
We have not yet offered anything that explicitly says "we surrender." We also have not yet refused any such term, either.
[/quote]
This was good.
Hopefully this doesn't turn into a long saga though. -
[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1281598437' post='2412493']
Its OK, he is only trying to pipe up for what he thinks is HIS SIDE. And please dont do Rebel Virginia the discourtesy of mentioning his name in the same breath as that of HerooofTime. I would take a RV over a bajillion Heroo any day of the week.
[/quote]
I was acknowledging RV as the lord our savior is all. See edited
But back on topic : "Best to Both." -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1281594671' post='2412423']
I am arguing that RoK's rationale for skirting around the diplomatic process is invalid. It is the skirting around diplomacy that makes the war unjust.
Basically, Hoo's ego got bruised when Heft ordered the aid, which was not an act of war on RoK just because Hoo claims it is. That's about the most generous scenario I can give as to why RoK might have skipped diplomacy. The reality is that they probably just wanted war for war's sake.
That's the key thing. The strongest argument coming from the other side of the table is "But Hoo said it was an act of war!" and I mean to demonstrate that Hoo was incorrect in his assessment.
[/quote]
In the previous post you stated that because NSO committed an act of war against TENE, RoK had no business considering it an act of war against themselves, even if they were TENE's protectors (and legally bound to defend them.)
You have now completely changed your argument and have only offered a tautology in return.
Just because you say RoK "skipped diplomacy," doesn't make it true.
The logs provided and data collected indicate that RoK did indeed try diplomacy.
When it failed, (and by failed I mean a high ranking government member of the NSO clarified the NSO's stance on the issue and decided to aid the rogue nation 6 million, all the while knowing that RoK would consider it an act of war...) they proceeded to gear for war.
And by no means are they required to actually engage in any diplomatic process at all.
I don't know your beef with Hoo or RoK, but...this is about as clear cut as it comes these days.
OOC: I would use the Billy Madison line, but...you know.
Oh, hey, NOW we're going to war!
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted · Edited by caligula
I think you're advocating for a removal of politics from the game.
The way IRON (I won't refer to DAWN, because they had no affect on the entire war whatsoever,) maneuvered was in such a way that they could make the aggressor's look foolish. They had already been decimated, and your analogy is off a tad. In this example IRON's actions resemble resistance movement. Force, while a component (sabotage,) of resistance, is predicated on winning the hearts and minds. FARK would have disbanded during the Holy Farkistan War if it had not persisted, and waited on time to turn against the holy insurrection.
Thus I think your assertion that an alliance should roll over and just take it is wrong in that if there are other options available it would be a crime to not pursue them.